ty. Commonly, these individuals
constitute a subgroup of the party's "executive committee"
(see variable 8.01), which often serves as the effective
seat of power in the organization. But sometimes such
committees are only organizational showcases, which merely
legitimate decisions made by a dominant figure inside or
even outside the committee. This variable aims at
effective leadership concentration, whether formal or
informal.

Operational Definition.The following scale incorporates a range of alternative
situations in the concentration of leadership, from low to
high. For this variable, the exercise of leadership is not
to be limited to the electoral stage, which often generates
an illusion of leadership concentration as party
activists defer to the candidates in the conduct of
campaigns. This kind of leader-follower relationship may be
short-lived with the resumption of normal political
life.

0

Leadership
is so dispersed that only local or
regional leaders can be identified; no one
presents a serious claim to the position of
national party spokesman, much less central
decision maker.

1

Leadership
is clearlydecentralized: there
are more than five leaders who frequently make
pronouncements in behalf of the national party,
but they are not regarded as authoritatively
binding spokesmen.

2

Leadership
is decentralized: from one to five
persons frequently speak in behalf of the party,
but they are not regarded as authoritatively
binding spokesmen by themselves for they do
often disagree.

3

Leadership
is collectively centralized into a group
of more than five party leaders; the decisions
of this group are regarded as authoritatively
binding on the party; there may be a party
leader, but he alone is not powerful enough to
control party policy

4

Leadership
is collectively centralized into a group of
three to five party leaders; the decisions
of this group are regarded as binding on the
party.

5

Leadership
is shared by two individuals; their joint
decisions are regarded as binding on the
party.

6

Leadership
is exercised by one individual who can
personally commit the party to binding courses
of action .

Coding Results. The data obtained after coding
almost 90 percent of our parties on BV908 are presented in
Tables 10.8a and 10.8b. What amounts to one-man rule holds
in almost 40 percent of our parties, with the exact
percentage somewhat higher in the later 1950s. The remaining
60 percent of the parties are well distributed along the
scale, with collective leadership emanating from a group
larger than five (code 3) embracing the next largest segment
of parties. There was a tendency for situations of one-man
rule to be well described in the literature, resulting in
part for the significant correlation between BV908 and AC908
of .33.